From: Muhammad Nasim (muhammad.nasim@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2008 - 17:33:57 ART
Good comment but now I really want to explain about MERICOM's reports
MERICOM's report are not based on true fact and MERICOM's reviews and tests
always support CISCO. In simple words Mericom's report are biased.
If u really want to look into good 3rd part reports about product and vendor
standing in certail market please look into Gartnet : ) or IDC reports
Please guys don't believe in Mericom's reports
HTH
2008/7/23 <gabriel.bryson@minx.com>:
> After reading along all day at what people had to say about the ASA vs
> Checkpoint, If I was a complete novice that went exclusively on what was
> said in this forum, I think I might go with the ASA?? There is a plenty
> said on the checkpoint side about licensing, hardware, patching
> problems, more expensive, not great support from the manufacturers, and
> all that was said about the ASA is that does not have a fantastic
> enterprise management solution, oh and the ASA vpn solution is rock
> solid???
> I think from my own experience the vast majority of people are put off
> the ASA because of the old PIX, its command line and horrible GUI (PDM),
> which the ASA have now revamped and replaced, making it just as easy as
> the Checkpoint to configure.
> Recently I had a meeting with a large blue chip company that had been
> using checkpoint exclusively, As they were purchasing various Cisco
> Routers and switches from us, I was asked to attend a meeting were there
> security manager, who had Checkpoint believer wanted to ask a few
> questions about the ASA. After the Q&A session I could see that lots of
> what he said were related to the old Pix limitations, I then opened my
> laptop and connected to a ASA we have in a lab and demonstrated the ASA
> and let him play...They just purchased two ASA's to replace their
> Checkpoints.
> PS check out the Miercom report on the ASA compared to its
> competitors??? Just google Miercom ASA
>
> My 2p worth
>
>
> Gabriel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Joseph Brunner
> Sent: 23 July 2008 17:49
> To: 'David Tran'; 'sushil menon'; 'Phillips, Kevin'
> Cc: 'dip'; 'Bill Eyer'; ccielab@groupstudy.com; security@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: ASA vs Checkpoint
>
> David,
>
> Time and time again you save me millions of brain cells. Thank you...
>
> God Cisco has its sh*t in a twist... that server is massive to not be
> able
> to run CSM like google.com...
>
> WOW
>
> ;)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> David Tran
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 10:30 AM
> To: sushil menon; Phillips, Kevin
> Cc: dip; Bill Eyer; ccielab@groupstudy.com; security@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: ASA vs Checkpoint
>
> "CSM is still new but yet another piece that Checkpoint and Juniper have
> been doing for a while. Cisco never really offered a solution to manage
> firewalls, maintain objects, and standard policies across and
> enterprise."
>
> This product is absolutely horrendous. I installed it on a Windows 2003
> Enterprise
> Edition with 16GB RAM and quad processors with quad-core and it is
> extremely
> slow.
> Totally unworkable across the VPN. The system becomes very slugglish
> after
> 5
> users
> logging into the system. At the moment, I am having issues with
> installing
> Performance Monitor on the CSM. In other words, it is a broken product.
>
> "Companies may
> not be ready to jump into buying a SIM as it may not be a requirement
> for that company but being able to store firewall logs and search for
> them is a core function of an enterprise firewall product"
>
> Could not disagree with you more on this. The good thing about
> Checkpoint
> centralize
> management is that the management piece can manage multiple firewalls.
> If
> you
> have
> multiple firewalls between the source and destination, the log, in real
> time,
> can tell you
> which firewalls accept the traffics and which one drop the traffics.
> When
> it comes to trouble shooting, nothing beat tcpdump. Cisco capture
> function
> is
> no where near tcpdump capabilities.
>
> "MARS is a great product if you want a SIM"
>
> If you have a "cisco" shop, then MARS is a great solution for you.
> However,
> if you
> have a heterogeneous environment, ArcSight or EIQ is a much superior
> solution.
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 7/23/08, Phillips, Kevin <Kevin.Phillips@FTIConsulting.com>
> wrote:
>
> From: Phillips, Kevin <Kevin.Phillips@FTIConsulting.com>
> Subject: RE: ASA vs Checkpoint
> To: "David Tran" <davidtran_mclean@yahoo.com>, "sushil menon"
> <sushilmenon2001@gmail.com>
> Cc: "dip" <diptanshu.singh@gmail.com>, "Bill Eyer"
> <beyer@optonline.net>,
> ccielab@groupstudy.com, security@groupstudy.com
> Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 9:41 AM
>
> This is quite a funny post as I have been beating up my Cisco SE's on
> exactly this point. I think they get it, but Cisco doesn't.
>
> A few years ago if you wanted a firewall, hands down it was Checkpoint
> partly because of their AI. Today they all do the same, they pass or
> deny traffic based on defined criteria. Sure one firewall may be faster
> than the next vendors, but what is setting it apart for me is the
> management.
>
> MARS is a great product if you want a SIM, but if you want firewall
> events then you just need logs, Checkpoint and Juniper get this and have
> been doing this for years. Cisco never really offered this in their
> product line and when they decided to add it they went leaps and bounds
> ahead by going to MARS. MARS is not a firewall log tool, it is a SIM,
> it does event correlation and a lot of other features. Companies may
> not be ready to jump into buying a SIM as it may not be a requirement
> for that company but being able to store firewall logs and search for
> them is a core function of an enterprise firewall product.
>
> CSM is still new but yet another piece that Checkpoint and Juniper have
> been doing for a while. Cisco never really offered a solution to manage
> firewalls, maintain objects, and standard policies across and
> enterprise.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> David Tran
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 7:01 AM
> To: sushil menon
> Cc: dip; Bill Eyer; ccielab@groupstudy.com; security@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: ASA vs Checkpoint
>
> "checkpoint support sucks big time as compared to cisco. see when u get
> stuck
> in live network all u care of some good guys to help u out of it this is
> where
> no one can touch cisco for sure."
>
> This part I completely agree with you. Checkpoint TAC supports suck big
> time. This is
> one area where Cisco is really good at.
>
> --- On Wed, 7/23/08, sushil menon <sushilmenon2001@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: sushil menon <sushilmenon2001@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: ASA vs Checkpoint
> To: "David Tran" <davidtran_mclean@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "dip" <diptanshu.singh@gmail.com>, "Bill Eyer"
> <beyer@optonline.net>,
> ccielab@groupstudy.com, security@groupstudy.com
> Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 2:17 AM
>
>
>
> i think it depends on what are u looking for.
>
> from cisco point of view the few advantages and disadvantages i feel.
>
> cisco is lot cheaper than checkpoint. in checkpoint the biggest pain is
> the
> licensing model. u need license for everything so the cost of it goes
> very
> high.since it;s a pure software u will have to invest on hardware again
> like
> if u are thinking of secure platform then good ibm or hp server plus
> their
> support as well.
>
> checkpoint support sucks big time as compared to cisco. see when u get
> stuck
> in live network all u care of some good guys to help u out of it this is
> where
> no one can touch cisco for sure.
>
> though checkpoint is famous for it;s gui that;s the only best thing i
> find in
> it. because it can be deployed on many different hardware configuration
> on
> different hardware is tough because for most of the hardware u don;t
> even get
> a documentation for free like nokia and crossbeam u need login access to
> just
> view the documentation there are hardly any good configuration examples
> that u
> could use.
>
> there is nothing very great that checkpoint does that cisco cannot do.
> except
> for few things like running vpns and running protocols in active/active
> mode.
>
> but whereas vpns are concerned i find cisco vpns much scalable and easy.
> in
> checkpoint u have something called as communities and according to
> communities
> u will have to decide u want to have a mesh or star like vpns. in asa
> it;s
> upto u can configure the way u want need not worry abt any communities.
>
> ofcourse for good management point of view seeing the logs in nice
> format and
> all u can go for checkpoint.
>
> if u are really looking for options i would say rather try juniper or
> fortinet. they are even better than both cisco and checkpoint.
>
> especially fortinet provides everything in a single asic based box. they
> have
> got ips,anti-spam,url-filtering,anti-virus,content-filtering all in a
> single
> box and their license cost is very less . their anti-virus has been
> winning 3
> consecutive awards in anti-virus bulletin.
> they can do souce based routing,., source interface based routing,
> policy
> based routing and many more features .
>
> they have got their fortimanager like checkpoint to manage all the boxes
> from
> a single point and they have a fortilog analyser for consolidating all
> the
> logs at a single place.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 7:56 AM, David Tran <davidtran_mclean@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> "
> But there are downsides. It is software running on a computer, so you
> have some form of Linux or Windows under the hood. We run ours on a
> Nokia platform. The model we currently use is diskless, but some of our
> older ones had a harddisk that seem to fail regularly. Plus keeping up
> with patching means not only patching Checkpoint, but also patching
> IPSO, which is Nokia's version of Linux."
>
> You should be using Secureplatform instead of Nokia. With
> Secureplatform, you go to a single vendor, Checkpoint,
> for support with both OS and Checkpoint. Nokia is overprice
> and overrated.
>
> Ins't RAID-1 supposed to resolve this issue? My Secureplatform
> has been up and running for almost five years with two reboot,
> because I upgraded it to HFA_17 and HFA_20.
>
> You will run into the same thing with Cisco as well. I can tell
> you from Pix version 7.2(x) alone, there are about 28 different
> versions out there.
>
> Checkpoint FireFly is high-end running on IBM x3650.
>
> Checkpoint can terminate VPN in active/active but Cisco ASA
> can not,
>
> Checkpoint is expensive and cisco is not
>
> Imagine managing a firewall with 20+ interfaces with Cisco, a
> very difficult task indeed. There is no cisco centralized
> management like CP Provider-1 either, unless you count
> Cisco Security Manager which run on crappy windows. This
> product is horrible. Even Cisco TAC recommends Solsoft
> over Cisco CSM.
>
> If you have the money, go with Checkpoint. Otherwise, go
> with Cisco.
>
> As someone put it, Checkpoint firewalls is like driving a Porsche
> or Audi while Cisco is like driving a Ford Pinto. Just like
> everything in life, you get what you pay for.
>
> --- On Tue, 7/22/08, Bill Eyer <beyer@optonline.net> wrote:
> From: Bill Eyer <beyer@optonline.net>
> Subject: Re: ASA vs Checkpoint
> To: "dip" <diptanshu.singh@gmail.com>
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com, security@groupstudy.com
> Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2008, 7:34 PM
>
>
>
>
> Dip,
>
> For what it's worth, at our company we use a mix of Checkpoint and Cisco
> firewalls, the ASA, FWSM for 6500 and some older PIX units. This is
> deliberate design solution on my part to provide diversity.
>
> Both manufacturers have advantages and dis-advantages, and I will give
> you my rant on both of them.
>
> The Checkpoint is great for a couple of things. The Management
> interface is still the best. Even I, who have never been to school on
> it can easily configure and push policies. The logging system, while
> proprietory, is really nice. If my firewall engineers had their way, we
> would use only Checkpoint firewalls.
>
> But there are downsides. It is software running on a computer, so you
> have some form of Linux or Windows under the hood. We run ours on a
> Nokia platform. The model we currently use is diskless, but some of our
> older ones had a harddisk that seem to fail regularly. Plus keeping up
> with patching means not only patching Checkpoint, but also patching
> IPSO, which is Nokia's version of Linux. Our Checkpoint reps recently
> told me they are coming out with their own appliance, that will feature
> integrated patching.
>
> Checkpoint is also "rental software". To legally keep it running you
>
> have to re-license it periodically. You also have to have a dedicated
> PC as a management server, and yes this has it's own license. Lastly
> Checkpoint support is really expensive, although third party support may
> be available from the appliance manufacturer. We get ours from Nokia.
> Unlike Cisco TAC, Nokia does draw the line at some support requests.
> For example I asked them to walk me through installing the R55 patch and
> they told me I had to hire a VAR to do the work. I got around it but it
> was painful.
>
> Smart Defense, which is their version of IPS also adds extra costs and
> since it is implemented in software, has a dramatic effect on
> throughput.
>
> All and all it adds up to a higher cost than ASA.
>
> ASA wraps good things into a single box, and the cost is lower.
> However, the management gui is not as easy to use (although recent
> generations are definitely better). Logging is also horrible. The logs
> on the built in gui are not nearly as nice as Checkpoints, so you will
> probably find the need for some type of Enterprise logging tool. The
> good new is that it is syslog so any enterprise SIM tool should work.
> We actually use CS-MARS, but the staff still doesn't like it as much as
> Checkpoint.
>
> That's my rant anyway. If you have the money to pay for it, Checkpoint
> is really nice, but support is higher, both in cost and in time.
>
> In our case in the Data Center we use Checkpoint as a perimeter
> firewall, then sandwich our DMZ between the outside and inside
> firewalls. The theory is that if there is a vulnerability in one
> manufacturer a hacker can't exploit it to get all the way inside the
> enterprise. The inside firewalls are FWSM blades. For small sites we
> use ASA because cost is the driving factor there.
>
> Long post, and maybe off topic, but I am certain that other engineers
> will have their own opinions.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Bill
>
> dip wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > i have to evaluate between Cisco ASA and Checkpoint for a big
> enterprise.
> I
> > think this is a better place to ask since lot of people would have
> worked
> on
> > both products.
> >
> > Please provide me all the plus points which you saw in checkpoint
> which
> you
> > think currently Cisco ASA doesn't have or vice versa.
> > Also what feature's checkpoint has which you think should be must in
> cisco
> > Firewalls .
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Dip
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
> This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc.
> www.surfcontrol.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
-- Muhammad Nasim Network Engineer Saudi Arabia
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 04 2008 - 06:11:56 ART